Reraise with AK? (Moved from the NL forum)

[ansky451]

(I posted this in the PL/NL forum, someone said this belonged in the Theory forum.)

Recently I have been questioning whether reraising with AK is a good idea or not. It seems to me, especially when playing in full 10 man games against fairly good players, rerasing with AK is not the right move very often. (Given, there are certain situations where reraising is a must)

By reraising with it, don't you give up too much information? Ideally with AK dont you want to be in a heads up pot against someone with... something like AQ, so that if an ace flops you can win a substantial amount of money? Reraising in a multiway pot seems like the right move, as AK goes down in value if there are a lot of people in the pot. But really, why reraise with it if you are heads up, You will only get people with smaller aces to fold, and you won't get a chance to win a lot of money from them later on. Suppose they have a small pair, you will only get action on your tptk if you are up agaisnt a set.

So suppose someone in a MP open raises a standard amount and you have AK on the button, all folds up to you. Why reraise? If they have... at, aj, aq, kq, kj you will chase them away usually (assuming they are competant players)If they have tt jj qq, they will most likely know when they are beat on the flop. If they have aces or kings, then you are pretty much done. Suppose they have a baby pair, you can get into real trouble if you flop tptk and they flop a set. The only reason i can think of, is "to gain information by a reraise" But i believe the amount you gain by trapping someone with aq (especially with deep stacks) when an ace flops, (They might be more willing to put money in the pot thinking "he probably would have reraised with a bigger ace") far outweighs the value in reraising with AK, because most good players, will only have hands that are beating you at that point (preflop), as they will not have smaller aces. So I ask again, in a spot like the one i mentioned, why reraise with AK?

PS: Maybe everyone else has already figured this probelm of mine out, but I've only been playing for a year or so, and i feel like ive been trained to reraise with AK, and now i am questioning the value of it.

[fnord_too]

I always treat the pre flop reraise with AK as a semi bluff. I want to win the hand before the flop because I only have an ace high, and AK is very tricky to play in NL/PL after the flop. I only raise if I think there is a chance of winning the pot right there, and proceed with caution if called.

Consider your example of flopping TPTK when your opponent flops a small set. If you reraise before the flop, chances are you win right away. If he calls, you are going to have a good idea of where you are at based on the post flop action. TPTK is not very strong in NL/PL. If on the other hand you smooth called, then you could be in deep trouble in your scenario precisely because you did NOT define your hand. Now you don't know if your opponent has say TP second kicker, a set, a draw, an underpair, or nothing. Of course situational considerations come into play, but in general I think the chance of winning the hand outright and defining your opponents hand warrent a reraise with AK most of the time.

Another reason to reraise with AK: If all in is within the range of a standard reraise, I think reraising all in is usually warrented unless you have good reason to suspect you are up against AA or KK (in which case you obviously muck). Here's why. First, you get folding equity, more than if your reraise leaves you with a decent stack. Second, in the event of a call you cannot be outplayed after the flop. You cannot be pushed off a winning hand, and you cannot be charged to see the turn and river if you are behind. You really don't mind giving up your post flop options if your hand is hard to play post flop.

[Louie Landale]

If they are going to fold their marginal raising hand then you should raise with AK and a variety (and occational) other hand like A4s and 87s. Pick your target well.

If they are going to call with their trouble hand then you should raise so long as your raise will let you win this pot by showing down your AK. AK is going to win more than 50% fair share heads up so long as it always shows the hand down. If they are going to steal the pot from you when you do NOT flop a pair then raising loses a lot of its value since you will tend to actually win this pot less than your 50% fair share. Yup, AK is an underdog to AQ if the AQ is going to steal it when nobody improves.

Thus, raise if it really will intimidate the opponent one way or the other.

Your other arguments don't apply well since if you flop a pair and he makes trips you are going to lose a big pot no matter how you play preflop.

- Louie

[ansky451]

The point i was trying to make, about the small pairs, is you are less likely to go broke i would think in an un-reraised pot. But i concede this point entirely, because it occurs to me that if you show enough strength preflop and they still reraise you on the flop, you can give their reraise more credit--on the flop, if you flop tptk and they flop a set

[allenciox]

I think it depends on your relative stacks. If I am playing early rounds of an NL tourney (or a SNG), I want to get in fairly cheaply, and I would likely call, hoping to trap if I have him dominated. On the other hand, if one of your stacks is enough that re-raising All-in is reasonable, (e.g. the raise was 15-25% of one of your stacks) then I would raise all-in.

[m2smith2]

Based on where you move this from, I take it you're talking only about NL. In limit it's obviously a must (although I think in late position it's often worth only a call but most vehemently disagree).

I think in NL the question becomes one of fold equity. You’re likely to get pairs of Jacks and worse to lay down just about everywhere but the button in a typical/tight game when you’re the second raiser.

And then you’re heads-up against the original raiser who’s holding a pair, so you need to hit. If the raise puts you AI you’re in good shape to hit top pair by the river. However, if both players have bullets after the flop, you’re more likely to do more betting.

And, if your opponent puts you on big cards and you’re staring at a ragged flop there will be some betting. If you’re first you have to bet to represent a bigger pair than he has, and if he’s first there’s a good chance he’ll fire.

This is the risk, to me, in building the pot pre-flop. If you want the raise to have any fold equity then you’ll have quite a bit of money in the pot pre-flop and representing a hand will be expensive when you don’t hit on the flop, which is almost two-thirds of the time.